Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> > The point is that there is a lot of replication information I don't want
> > to merge into that SGML page so even if we mention "Londiste", the wiki
> > reference is still useful. I have the same problem with mentioning
> > pooling in the docs --- there is no natural place to put it, but I can
> > reference the wiki from the performance SGML docs.
> well the problem seems to be that we are basically trying to recreate
> the stuff on the wiki in the main docs in a way that might end up in
> being outdated all the time.
> I think that we need to draw a clear line where we do external links
> (random sites or the wiki) and internal docs. everything that is the
> core product needs to be in the main docs if we go above that (and that
> includes all the replication stuff and whatnot) we should just reference
> an external source (wiki.postgresql.org prefered - fallback to something
> else) but maintaining just some stuff in our own docs seems just wrong...
Yea, the wiki information is far too bulky to fit into our docs, and
maintaining it in our docs isn't worthwhile because it is more
_suggestions_ than critical information.
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
In response to
- Re: Londiste at 2010-05-27 21:07:53 from Stefan Kaltenbrunner
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Heikki Linnakangas||Date: 2010-05-28 11:09:48|
|Subject: HA doc updates|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-05-27 21:50:04|
|Subject: Re: documentation build log is busted, and has been for awhile |